Terminal Politicians

Recently a Griffith Journalism/Law student asked SOSA the following questions.

Journalist:...In a recent media conference that MP for Moncrieff Steve Ciobo held at uni, he again outlined his willingness to support a cruise ship terminal on the Broadwater.

SOSA:Steve Ciobo first made these remarks at a press conference on The Spit a month or so ago, at which SOSA were present. He prefaced those remarks with an assurance that HE DOES NOT support a cruise terminal on The Spit. He then went on to attack the Bligh Govt for failing to capitalise on a cruise ship terminal for the Coast but reiterated over and over that his remarks are ".subject to environmental concerns". In other words, his support for a terminal is wholly conditional and arguably, is therefore not genuine support at all.

When asked by a journo where ought it go, he hesitated and then referred to the western Broadwater as an area considered which should be reconsidered subject to environmental concerns.

Our take on this is that Steve Ciobo is a professional politician. His brief is to embarrass and attack Labor whether federal or state. He knows that the cruise terminal is highly contentious issue on the GC and that certain monied developer interests persist in wanting the land grab which a terminal proposal might offer. He also knows those developers are against the Govt's (right and proper) position on refusing a terminal. In other words, perhaps he thinks that there is a lot of potential pressure which can be applied on the Govt and that he can also appease certain developer interests by taking this position publicly.

He is also attempting to gain attention in his role as shadow tourism minister - and be seen to be doing 'something'.

Journalist:Despite many Gold Coasters thinking that after the Beattie government and know the Bligh government expressing their disapporval of the proposal, the issue is effectively off the agenda. The reality is that with attitudes such as these from an influential member of the opposition, in the near future, possibly after the next state or federal election, with a change of government this issue, could gain support once again.

SOSA:Note however that the attitude is wholly conditional upon something which we do not believe can ever be satisfied. Therefore it's an easy position - and he has an escape clause built in.

Journalist:I am writing an article on this issue and was wondering if someone from SOSA could provide a response to a few questions that I have. Thanks in advance.

How does the SOSA plan to fight the cruise ship terminal issue once again if it was to resurface as a major issue in the next couple of years?

SOSA:SOSA has already collected over 28000 signatures opposing a cruise terminal on The Spit. The same environmental, engineering and economic reasons for such huge community opposition apply equally to any idea to locate a terminal anywhere in the Broadwater, in circumstances where vessels would be required to enter via the Seaway. As Peter Lawlor MP for Southport has stated publicly, the insurmountable difficulties to vessels berthing on The Spit would be dwarfed by the problems in attempting to get them across the Broadwater.

Journalist:Mr Ciobo's main support of the terminal stems from recent figures that suggests the tourism industry in Australia is at record low levels.

SOSA:Cruise ships are not the only solution to this issue and indeed, cruise tourists are perhaps the lesser value tourists of any in terms of the dollar spend on shore and their contribution to local economies (eg: cruise tourists do not use local accommodation or restaurants for example). If Mr Ciobo genuinely wants to do something about the tourism industry on the GC, he is surely starting in the wrong place. Is this stale rehash really the best he can do?

Journalist:However he said that he would only support a terminal if it stacked up from an environmental point of view.

SOSA:As we suggest above, this condition is his 'out clause' for a position which we suspect he knows is untenable but which he hopes will appease certain interest groups and needle the Government.

Journalist:In an area that relies so heavily on the tourism industry, these figures are expected to impact significantly on local small businesses and the unemployment rates in the area. Ultimately a cruise ship terminal would help to alleviate these issue, bringing more tourists into the area and keeping alive these local business. How do you combat such an argument and suggest that a cruise ship terminal would ultimately be a bad solution to this problem?

SOSA:Your question contains several assumptions which research into the cruise ship industry contradicts. As indicated above, cruise tourism is not the money generator nor panacea for local businesses you presuppose. In addition the Government's draft environmental impact study into the proposed terminal on The Spit stated unequivocally that the costs to construct, dredge, maintain and operate such a terminal (and so on) would render it NOT economically viable. This is already on the public record, and does not include the additional dredging and related costs of a vessel requiring (eg) to reach the western Broadwater.

You also need to ask yourself which small businesses you think would benefit? In many instances, cruise tourists are bussed from the ship to a specific experience (eg Dreamworld) and as such their opportunity to contribute to anything other than that one business is minimal, particularly given the tidal requirements of successfully getting a ship in and out of the Seaway and the stated intention of cruise companies that stays on the GC would be brief.

Cruise passengers by and large eat and sleep on the boat; so a day trip does not result in a substantial contribution to a local economy at all. Factor in the COSTS of that visit in terms of infrastructure, services, roads, water, waste management, air pollution (ship in port equals 10,000 cars a day) etc, and the cost benefits become illusory.

Journalist:As I said before, Mr Ciobo said that he would only support the terminal if it stacked up from an environmental point of view. I?m sure that SOSA does not think this is possible. Do you think that when it comes to the crunch, Mr Ciobo will be that concerned with environmental issues, especially if it comes in conflict with economical issues?

SOSA:The war on the economics is already won- even the Government's own economic analysis shows that the terminal "..does NOT stack up". Steven Ciobo should try reading the data available, instead of attempting to regenerate a tired and defeated debate for his own political purposes.

When it comes to the crunch Steve Ciobo will listen to his electorate and they have (and will again if necessary) tell him loud and clear that he is punting on the wrong horse.

Journalist:Does SOSA have a position on whether, if they had to make a choice, they would prefer a cruise ship terminal on the spit or the Western side of the Broadwater (where Mr Ciobo and the Liberal government are proposing).

SOSA:SOSA does not contemplate either such choice as safe, realistic or appropriate. SOSA relies upon the Government honouring its word to the people of the Gold Coast with respect to protecting The Spit as public open space in the areas north of Seaworld and north of the Sheraton. Both premiers Beattie and Bligh have promised this and we hold them to it.

We would point out that John Paul Langbroek, Liberal MP for Surfers Paradise did NOT come out supporting any location for a cruise terminal (rather he called for the Govt to END the issue once and for all - having regard to a quote from Premier Bligh that she would look at any other terminal location options that are put up if any). In fact he seemed more concerned that the Govt was opening the door rather than advocating it reopen the issue.

It is not to our knowledge correct to suggest the Liberal 'government' are proposing any such thing.

As previously indicated, we think Mr Ciobo's position is at best mischievous political point scoring and at worst fatally flawed and ill-informed. Either way, he has a BIG escape clause written in- and would be saved (were things to come to an EIS which we doubt) by the fact that environmentally there is NO WAY a terminal can be economically and environmentally sound if located inside the Broadwater via the Seaway entrance.